Thursday, August 16, 2007

ECM Libra will always be a chip on the shoulder for Khairy Jamaluddin. If Khairy is serious about giving a “Penerangan” this Saturday to UMNO members and hope to turn them into cyber warriors, he must explain with rational answer the mess of ECM Libra-Avenue Merger. This blog has written extensively on this ECM Libra-Avenue Merger and will not repeat itself. Just search on this blog using the keyword “ECM Libra”.

Since Khairy have used before and will use again Dato’ Shahril the PAC Chairman’s twisted press statement after last year’s sham PAC enquiry as fallback to absolve himself, its time to disclose details.

1. Function & Power of Securities Commission (SC)

One of the function of the SC, as mentioned in Part II Section 15 Para 1(i) of the Securities Commission Act 1993 (Act 498) (pg. 16), are below:

To suppress illegal, dishonourable and improper practices in dealings in securities and trading in future contracts, and the provision of investment advice or other services relating to securities or future contracts;

With respect to this Merger, shareholders wrote to all relevant authorities prior to the EGM alerting of the many discrepancies – SC, Bursa, EPU and Minister of Finance II; Board of Directors of Avenue; and Avenue’s Auditor.

NO RESPONSE was forthcoming. NO ACTION was taken and the EGM proceeded. Just prior to the first PAC, SC acknowledged all complaints. But monsths after the whole exercise is complete, the claim everythings is fien and dandy.

Why was there no attempt by SC and Bursa to address the issue to safeguard National interest and minority shareholders? The SC was authorised to suppress NOT ONLY illegal practices BUT ALSO when it is deemed and suspected as dishonourable and improper practices. Have touched at length on this, have we not?

3. Interested Party and Acting in Concert

In the Circular to Shareholders (cover page) by Avenue, the originator of this Merger is clearly Avenue Capital Resources Berhad (ACRB) and their subsidiary, Avenue Securities Sdn Bhd acted as Adviser to undertake submission to SC and discussion/negotiation with SC and ECM Libra Berhad (ECM). Thus, all the major shareholders are directly or indirectly Originator and interested party to see the Merger through.

The Circular in pg (ii) defined only the Trimvirate of major shareholders of ECM, namely Dato Kalimullah, Lim Kian Onn, and David Lim, are defined as acting in concert.

Since Management of ACRB are involved in the negotiation with ECM and all the major shareholders of Avenue are represented on the Board of Directors and are legally Management, they are deemed as interested party and are in concurrence with Parties Acting in Concert. Should they be parties acting in concert too and not independent?

4. EGM, Waiver, and Voters

The exchange of shares for Avenue shares by ECM resulted in holding 53% of Avenue and breached the 33% limit for a Mandatory General Offer (MGO). Since ECM would redistribute to shareholders of ECM, they requested Waiver from MGO under Whitewash Procedure in Practice Note 2.9.1 of the Malaysian Code of Takeovers and Mergers (pg. 14-17).

The requirements for exemptions - approval from Independent Shareholders; appointment of an Independent Adviser; Circular of Independent Advice; and prior consultation with SC - was technically done (but not necessarily met), except for the following:

(5)(b) (iii) interested parties have abstained from voting at that meeting; and

(7) For the purpose of sub-paragraph (5)(b)(iii), “interested parties” include the following persons:

(a) the applicant for an Exemption under this Note and any person acting in concert with the applicant;(b) the directors of the offeree if they have any significant holdings which they intend to retain and which they propose to use in the future in co-operation with the applicant and persons acting in concert with the applicants; or(c) any person whose interest in the outcome of the voting may result in some relationship with the applicant and persons acting in concert with him other than as a holder of voting shares of the offeree.

Thus, the SC allowed for two infringements, specifically:

1. According to Para (7)(c) of the Whitewash Procedure, Aroma Teraju Sdn Bhd and Pantai Holdings Berhad as interested parties.

2. People related to ECM Libra are interested parties and should not attend and vote in the EGM. One notably visible at the EGM was Mr. Lim Boon Soon, Chief Financial Officer of ECM who was capacity as a proxy.

Since the Major Shareholders of Avenue are interested parties and also parties acting in concert (remember this not a takeover but a Merger), they are NOT Independent Shareholders? As a result of the non abstainance of the interested parties, Minority Shareholders that had a fighting chance were out voted at the EGM. Contrary to the news report of 99% favourable vote, the poll result was 60-70% against both resolutions.

5. Independent Advisers to Shareholders

The appointment of the Independent Advisers to shareholders was made in accordance with the Whitewash Procedure. The following are some questionable issues on the Adviser, K&N Kenanga Berhad:

a) The Independent Advice Circular to Shareholders dated and circularised on May 9th, 2006, less than the 14 days notice for the scheduled May 18th, 2006 EGM. This is a contravention with Section 145 Companies Act, 1965 (Act 125) to circularise documents related to the EGM together with the Meeting Notice.

b) In the Independent Advice Circular to Shareholders, they had wrongly advised shareholders with improper methodologies and justified unusual practices in the valuation of ECM and Avenue shares.

c) Avenue, as the Originator, has more intricate knowledge than the Independent Adviser. Why is it that the Board of Directors (comprise of Government representative) only recommend the Merger to their shareholders as "reasonable”, while the Independent Adviser could recommend as “fair and reasonable”? (Read pg. 26 and 36 of the Circular to Shareholders)

All these issues are questionable, dishonourable and improper practices. Any wrongful and misleading information by the Independent Advisers falls within the purview of the SC. Why didn’t the SC suppress and ignore the letters sent to them?

6. Securities Commission Presentation

In reference to the Presentation by SC at the Parlimentary PAC, many claims by SC are questionable.

a) In reference to pg. 3 on "Fakta Penggabungan", it is the practise to know the EPS (earning per share) and NTA (Net Tangible Asset) as major valuation indicator to derive PER (Price Earning Ratio) and PBR (Price to Book Value Ratio).

(i) What is the NTA of ACRB or Avenue and AICB before and after the merger vis-à-vis ECM? This is to get comparison value.

(ii) Bursa amended the announcement dated 27-12-2005 of ECM Financial Result (Reference No. EL-060224-52203) for 3rd Quarter ending 31-12-2005 with an amended announcement dated 3-3-2006 (Reference No. EL-060303-34447) to change the NTA per share of RM0.50 to Net Asset per share of RM1.34. This amendment gives an impression of a higher valuation indicator. Why was the 3-month amendment, which is not the practise, made?

i) “Modal Pasaran(ECM Libra)” is stated as RM459 mil. as at 17-1-2006 price fixed. Link this issue to market rigging of ECM shares and over inflated ECM shares value by RM130 mil. Why SC and Bursa made no actions?

The stand of SC is to let the market and participants determine the pricing of securities. But, SC is not absolved from the responsibility to ensure issues of valuation are fair and equitable.

c) In reference to pg. 11 on "Rumusan", SC made the conclusion that it has met the stipulated requirements. However, the items below are disputable:

i) Item 2: “Avenue Capital Resources & ECM Libra akan mendapat manafaat”. But the immediate effect is that ACRB shareholders have a much more reduced value of ECMLA shares than that of ECM shareholders.

ii) Item 3: “Penasihat Bebas (K&N Kenanga Sdn Bhd) telah dilantik untuk menasihati pemegang minoriti”. But the Advisor acts as a rubber stamp to the interested party in justifying their action and did not highlight the discrepancies in the Merger that was detrimental to ACRB shareholders.

iv) Item 5: “Penggabungan tersebut adalah tertakluk kepada kelulusan pemegang saham kedua-dua syarikat” EGM at the level of ACRB was not conducted in accordance with requirements and spirit of the Company Act and Malaysian Code of Takeovers and Mergers.

d) There are also issues of Moratorium on and Window Period for Directors to undertake sales of shares.

i) Why were the Triumvirate allowed to buy and sell shares with Tan Sri Azman and Khairy within less than 2 months after the shares were refloated? Is there not a Moratorium?

ii) Are the sales by Directors Dato Kalimullah and David Lim and purchase by Lim Kian Onn within the Window Period for Directors to buy and sell shares?

7. Ministry of Finance Presentation

In reference to the Presentation by MoF at the Parlimentary PAC, the following answers are seek:

a) In reference to Pg. 9 of the Presentation by MoF on “Pelaburan MKD Dalam Avenue Capital”, there were few questionable claims:

i) Dividend is an investment income (like a rent), thus should not be considered in investment valuation calculation in pg. 9. The MoF used the closing price on August 22nd, 2006 of ECMLA and POS at RM0.615 and RM4.54 respectively to value of investment at RM196.1 mil and claim significant increment in value. But this is not a significant change to the RM193.9 million value as at 17-1-2006.

ii) What is the cost of Investment by MKD? And, has the costly Corporate Restructuring and Merger resulted in uncovering more value for a significant increase in value/investment? No! What is purpose to do a Corporate Exercise?

iii) Since clearly the exercise does not show an increase in value on paper and in the market, why did the Government choose to relinquish control to individuals?

b) In Pg. 10 of the Presentation by MoF on “Faedah Penggabungan”, the following are answers seeked:

i) In seeking to meet the RM500 million paid-up capital requirement, why is it that MoF did not consider looking at other options than ECM with a short track record and MoF lost control?

ii) Between the two companies, ACRB has a better advantage in terms of network of service. The increment of branch networking and its location to Avenue/ACRB by acquiring the branch network of ECM is not significant.

iii) Government has many other companies in its many stables of related Institutions seeking for Mergers. Why was it not its consolidation not considered?

iv) On the claim to export Financial Services, has ECM Libra Avenue have the achievement and potential of doing so? What has it achive thus far?

c) In Pg. 11 of the Presentation by MoF on “Penutup”, they concluded the deal based on iffy assumptions:

i) There is no lost in value to the Government shares in short term. It didn’t happen. The valuation approved by SC was estimating down Avenue shares and estimating up ECM shares. When the Government finally sold its shares at 80 sen within a short time, it is believed to be at loss.

ii) The government claim confident of investment appreciation in the long term. Has the relevant authorities gave an undertaking to guarantee the issuance of an Investment Banking license to ECM Libra Avenue Bhd? If not, why does Government commit to a major decision? IF the Government is confident, why did it sell?

iii) They justified that the EGM of both Avenue and ECM approved. Are they closing one eye to the fraudulent EGM of Avenue?

d) As of the Company announcement on 27-6-2006, the Board of Directors of ECMLA were:

Contrary to the Government claim that they did not lose control, they actually did and later sold the whole block to Tan Sri Azman and later redistribute it to other parties.

At that time, the Government has 15.4% interest as compared to the top 3 directors interest of 22%. Why was the Government only allocated 2 seats on the Board? Why are there 3 independent Directors represented on the Board of Directors, more than the Government representatives (if 2 are assumed)? Who has the power to select and submit to the Board of Directors the selection of CEO? Government or others?

8. Directors’ Fiduciary Duty and Conflict of Interest

a) Why did the Government voted in favour upon knowing the Merger results in the dilution of Government shares, loss in management control of its GLC to individual controlling ECM and acquirer acquired it without spending capital?

b) Why the Board of Directors of ACRB, the Originator, only recommend as “reasonable” but without “fair” over the usual practise for a “Fair and reasonable” recommendation?

c) Why is it that ACRB major shareholders did not vote for MGO to demand more value from the ECM party acquiring management control?

d) ACRB is a far superior company than ECM in paid-up capital, shareholders fund, asset, profitability, business volume, asset backing, earning, branch network, research, and rating. Pricing methodology other than market pricing would give better value for ACRB/AICB. Why was other pricing methodology, other than market pricing, not used?

e) Why did the Directors and Major Shareholders agree to the use of market price for valuations, when the market price for ECM Libra was visibly rigged during price fixing?

f) Why were the Directors and government shareholders allowed for the bloated valuation of ECM using Price to Book Value ratio (PBR) of 2 times? When the last page of the SC presentation to the PAC is refered and outliers like OSK, CIMB andArab Malaysian are excluded, ECM’s PBR should be at the maximum of 1 time!

g) The acquisition of 3% ECM Libra shares by Khairy Jamaluddin on December 28th, 2005 is close to the announced Merger with Avenue on January 19th, 2006. With his father-in-law as Minister of Finance and head of MoF Inc, this constitute Insider Trading offense!

h) And, is this not a Conflict of Interest? Do refer to Practice Note 4.1 Section 13 para (2) of the Malaysian Code of Takeovers and Mergers (pg. 29) as quoted below:

(2) there should always be disclosed any conflict of interest situation. A conflict of interest is deemed where:

(a) a director is common to the offeror and the offeree;(b) a director has substantial interest in either the offeror or the offeree, or both, held either directly or indirectly;(c) where cross-holdings of substantial interest occur between the offeror and the offeree; or(d) a holder of voting shares has substantial interest in both the offeror and the offeree.

“Substantial interest” refers to a holding of more than 20% of the voting shares. Note: MOF Inc has more than 20% interest in Avenue. Khairy Jamaluddin is not a substantial shareholders of ECM but is in the management and has links with the Parties in Concert, namely; Dato Kalimullah, Lim Kian Onn and David Chua.

9. Resignation of Chairman and CEO of ACRB/Avenue

The Company announced the resignation of Tan Sri Samshuri bin Arshad, its Independent Non – Executive Chairman on March 22nd, 2006. He was appointed to the Board of Avenue on 20 October 1999 and subsequently became the Chairman on 19 November 2001. Tengku Zafrul, the Managing director was reported in the April 7th, 2006 edition of the Business Times, News Straits Times. He was said to have not renewed his contract that expired on April 6th, 2006.

a) Why did the two important office bearer of the Company resigned after the announcement of the Merger on January 19th, 2006 and before the May 18th, 2006 EGM?

b) Why did the MoF accepted their resignation, in view of two important Corporate Exercise namely; the Corporate Reorganisation plan and Merger with ECM Libra is on going concurrently?

c) Why did David Chua the key management personnel of ECM resigned? Who did he sell his shares to? As a Financial Institution, do the buyer have to be approved by MoF/SC?

10. Authority to approved the Merger at MoF

In the first session of the Parlimentary PAC, it was made known that the decision of the Merger is not done by the Minister of Finance or Minister of Finance II but officers of MoF.

a) Who is the officer?

b) Shouldn’t sales of GLC shares require due process at EPU or approval of Minister/ Cabinet?

c) Under what governmental practise or precedent was the approval made?

So Khairy, jawab first before trying to be Government spokesman.

The stench from the touch of his rotten hands in this deal is all over that it stinks beyond high heaven. If Khairy refused to answer, which his past history of cowardice act when facing confrontation will likely do, then his arrogant represents the psycho insecurity of the first berok,monyet and hantu with an Oxford degree.

How about other bloggers and comentators list their questions for this ghostly wunder-ape to answer for Saturday?

This Saturday August 18th, 2007, Khairy & Azalina is expected to hold a “Penerangan” session at PWTC for UMNO members on Bloggers. The session is likely to provide them a background on Blogging, their perspective of Blogging, and seeking support to take on Bloggers.

To date, their handling of Bloggers have been negative and it has backfired. The more the bloggers are cursed and harrassed, it adds to public curiosity and more realised the ability of Bloggers to break-in news and provide interesting perspective of events. Hopefully, they realise that the most impactful approach is to effectively articulate and explain the ruling party’s point-of-view than the childish manner their cyber boo boo are engaging bloggers.

Khairy, described in Joceline Tan’s boo boo as the true political son of Tun Dr Mahathir and the happening, is the appropriate person to speak. He has a lot of explanation to do. He certainly should explain first his personal participation in ECM Libra Berhad (ECM), which was conveniently timed few months prior to the Company’s takeover of Avenue Asset Berhad (Avenue).

Background

Avenue is a Public Listed Company controlled by Aroma Teraju (29.5%), a Company owned by MOF Incorporated and Bank Simpanan Nasional. Its other major shareholder are Pantai Holdings Berhad (16.7%).

Avenue is said to have initiated a Merger with ECM to be able to qualify for an Investment banking license. The Board of Directors of Avenue was directed to make it such that they had initiated the Merger with ECM under the pretext of meeting the RM500 million minimum requirements for an Investment Banking license.

Avenue would purchase the subsidiaries of ECM to be paid by the issuance of new shares in a newly created Avenue entity called Avenue International Capital Berhad (AICB). Through a series of event and procedures, ECM has taken management control of the merged entity with Avenue called ECM Libra - Avenue (ECMLA). Aroma Teraju Sdn Bhd would be reduced to 15%, shareholders of ECM control 53%, and Dato Kalimullah, Lim Kian Onn, and David Chua assume control with 22% of ECMLA.

Minority shareholders that attended the Avenue EGM on May 18th, 2006 questioned on issues pertaining to the Merger. The response was non-committal and the Board of Directors just wants to getover to proceed. Two resolutions were brought to the EGM that sought approval from the shareholders - Resolution I was approval for the proposed merger with ECM Libra and Resolution II to waive the Mandatory General Offer (MGO) to Minority Shareholders of ECM. Authorities allowed the interested major shareholders to vote and the Minority Shareholders were out voted.

As a GLC under the control of MOF Inc. and BSN, Avenue major shareholders easily gave management control to the triumvirate of Kalimullah, Lim Kian Onn and David Chua. It is strange for them to not demand for MGO for more value from the acquiring ECM party. Why did the major shareholders vote for the Merger when they are getting a bad deal and would lose control?

Mechanism

When compared to ECM, Avenue is a far superior company in all aspect - paid-up capital, shareholders fund, asset, profitability, business volume, asset backing per share, earning per share, branch network, research, and rating. However, the grossly inferior ECM tookover a more superior Avenue using questionable practices below:

1. Avenue “written-off” some RM 250 million goodwill and another RM20 million in the 2004 and 2005 Annual Accounts, respectively. ECM conveniently did not write-off its RM 360 million goodwill. This justify the artificially inflated valuation of ECM Libra Bhd by about RM630. This discrepencies was raised by the Minority Shareholders Watchdog Group (MSWG) representative, Encik Wahab at the EGM and was reported by the Press.

2. The price to fix the value of ECM is the use of last done price of ECM shares, prior to suspension of trading on January 17th, 2006. The price was fixed at the spiked price of RM1.06. The shows a volume and price build up since end December 2005! This is a market rigging act that is a crime under the Securities Industry Act 1984. The overvalue by 30 sen per shares for 433 million shares inflated ECM valuation by about RM130 million. A much fair price fixing practise is the use of average price. However, it is not advantageous to ECM.

3. The purchase of ECM Libra subsidiaries is transacted by issuing of new shares in Avenue priced at RM0.66 per share. This is a gross undervaluation since the documents shows the Net Tangible Asset of Avenue is RM 0.88 per share and its projected value is worth at its par value of RM1.00 per share. This allowed ECM shareholders to hold about 53% shares in AICB. If the shares were rightly priced at RM1.00, they could get only 40% of the merged entity of AICB. In a takeover exercise, there should be a MGO to shareholders as option to exit the Company at a more enticing higher price than the current market share price.

4. It is odd and irregular to appoint another stockbroker, K&N Kenanga as an Independent Adviser. The usual credible practise is have Merchant Bank or established Audit firms to act as one. There were several discrepencies and questionable practices by K&N Kenanga.

They justified the improper comparative valuation, overly high valuation multiple, and ignoring the fair proforma valuation of AICB. They justified the overvaluation of ECM by making comparison to highly established bank-backed CIMB and Arab Malaysian groups. This is not an “apple with apple” comparison. They deceived the shareholders in endorsing the use of Net Asset and not commonly practised use of Net Tangible Asset as valuation yardstick. They ignored the clearly mentioned value of Avenue of RM1.00 per share stated in the documents and defended the issuance of Avenue shares at a discount.

Clearly, K&N was acting as a rubber stamp to misrepresent fact and convince shareholders the deal as fair and reasonable. The Board members of Avenue as originator of the deal strangely only recommend as “reasonable” but without a “fair” recommendation. Shouldn’t the originator have more intricate knowledge than Adviser?

Or is it because one of the original shareholder of K&N Kenanga and Director is Dato Aziz bin Hashim, who just happen to be a brother to Tan Sri Azman Hashim, the man allegedly said to be behind the scene in this deal?

5. The EGM of Avenue was marred with improper practices. At the start, the Independent Adviser report was not circulated together with the 14-day EGM notice dated May 3rd, 2006. They were only circulated on May 9th, 2006. The Chairman and Directors of Avenue were reluctant to answer ALL the questions raised by the minority shareholders and mostly redirected to K&N Kenanga.

The resolution for a Waiver from a MGO is meant for Independent Shareholders and strangely shareholders deemed as interested party and represented on the Board were allowed to vote by the Securities Commission. Contrary to press report of 99% in favour, both resolutions saw a majority of around 60-70%. There was clearly element of coercion and influence applied to force the institutional and major shareholders to vote despite the unfavourable terms.

Few ECM staff attended the EGM and is tantamount to parties related with ECM bought shares in Avenue and participated in the EGM and its voting proceedings. One notably visible was one Director of ECM, namely; Mr. Lim Boon Soon, their Chief Financial Officer was there in the capacity as a proxy.

6. With so much noticeable indiscretion and poor judgment in much aspect of this Merger, all the authorities have not acted accordingly. The authorities, particularly SC, have given the Merger too many concessions at the expense of the rakyat’s interest under trusteeship of MOF Inc., small people’s savings at BSN and the minority shareholders.

Shareholders wrote to all relevant authorities prior to the EGM alerting of these discrepancies – SC, Bursa, EPU and Minister of Finance II; Board of Directors of Avenue; and Avenue’s Auditor. No action was taken and EGM proceeded. There were police reports made by shareholders but since SC would be referred to, no action has been taken.

Privatisation of Government related Companies should undergo due process at EPU and receive cabinet approvals but non were seeked. Ministry of Finance single handedly approved it. Government willingly gave management control of a well run company and allowed the takeover without any capital outlay.

All the Directors were instructed to vote in favour of the Merger despite the lop-sided valuation. The indicator is the unstated “fair and reasonable” but merely “reasonable” recommendation in the document. Avenue’s Chairman and CEO resigned in protest and not stayed for the conclusion of this Merger.

Expected Excuses

Lets hope Khairy will not do a Mat Taib style reply of “ini cerita lama” because it is not yet two years. He should be fair to give his cybertrooper recruits a decent answer to explain or they’ll get “tarred with feathers” out of blogosphere.

As a wunderboy Investment Banker at ECM Libra, despite no job experience in Investment Banking or Securities but mere short stinct as cub reporter of The Economist, Khairy can’t deflect answer as saying he sold his shares at a loss. Lets not play sympathy game and use cheap spin. Since his resignation from ECM, he has no jobs, yet he own several expensive cars, travels in a heli, used an iPhone, and his mother is said to rebuild a few million home in a posh neighbourhood to new palatial home.

Sure, he sold the merged ECMLA shares but he still own the ECM Libra Berhad shares that is now a Sendirian Berhad company. What happen to that Company? Any change of name? What business is it in now?

He is expected to justify by saying that he is not a substantial shareholder of more than 5%, thus he is not required to disclose his transaction. He sold his shares to David Lim and Dato Kalimullah, which later sold down to Tan Sri Azman. Is it to maintain management control? That indicates Khairy as an interested party and working in concert!

He would conveniently try to absolved himself by claiming that the Dato Shahril-chaired and staged Parlimentary Accounts Committee (PAC) cleared the SC, Treasury and the Minister of Finance. Tun Dr Mahathir cynically said at Putrajaya today against the present administration's habit of accepting any words as accepted truth.

To know why SC and MoF was not actually cleared, wait for the sequel to this posting for details of the infringements.

Saturday, August 11, 2007

As far back as my recollection of US elections goes, one is likely to hear this phrase repeated in every US election, "Are you better off now than you are four years ago?"

The incumbent candidate would usually say yes and present a set of statistics to back it. If it is undisputably not any better, they'll present a set of statistics either to show the situation is not as bad as perceived or a situation turning around from some remedies applied. Predictably, the challenger would say otherwise and show a more grim picture.

I stumbled into a May 27th The Star article on Forum MyKMU here entitled "Gaji 3000: Why in US Can Save vs Malaysia Cannot Save Much?" and reproduced this opinion piece likely a letter to the editor, below:

I agree with what is actually going on in our country. Most of us spend more than what we can afford. A lot of people try to keep up with others and due to this, a lot end up with not enough money to spend.

But there are also other problems. I have been living in the United States for almost two years and I can save more money compared to when I was working in Malaysia for four years. I am not converting US$1 to RM3.50 but I am talking at a dollar to ringgit parity (US$1:RM1). As an example, a fresh degree graduate executive in US earns about US$3,000 after tax a month while a fresh Malaysian graduate earns about RM3,000 after tax.

Everything in Malaysia is expensive. For example, the cheapest car the 600cc Kancil is about RM25,000 while a similar car in the US is only US$8,000. The reason is because the so called national car (Proton & Perodua), even it is assembly locally but the engine is imported actually, yet the quality is like shit. That is the typical malaysian attitute "love face". The world tallest building, the space program, the national car program, non of these is done by Malaysian. People around the world is laughing at Malaysian's stupidity, wasting money & resources .... ashame.

The Government always says that the cost of petrol is cheaper here than in the US. But a full tank for a 1,800cc car only costs US$35 while for a similar car in Malaysia it is RM80. The petroleum found in the country is national property, it's belong to every Malaysian, but the true is all the petrol is robbed by one company, and the company declare billion of profit but no even one sen come back to Malaysian, and yet we have to pay high price for petrol. The government always compare the petrol price in malaysia to the country which does not produce petrol, why don't they compare it with those country which produce petrol.

High-speed Internet Streamyx at the lowest speed cost RM50 here while it is free in US . A laptop which costs about US$800 is sold at RM2,000 in Malaysia.The average price of a house in the US is about US$250,000 for a 1,700 sq ft bungalow compared to RM200,000 for a 1,200 sq ft terrace house in Malaysia.

With all this debt and burden, how can you expect Malaysians to retire at 55? In most households, the husband and wife have to work so that they can support their family.

When I returned to Malaysia from US in the early 80s, I used the price of an Arrow brand shirt as my yardstick. Back then, a white cotton one would cost about US$25 in the US compared to RM70 in Malaysia for a slightly lower quality cloth. For RM150 in Malaysia then, one could rent a room in Bangsar. For US$350 a month, a friend of mine could share a studio Apartment with his friend at 14th Street in Manhattan Island, New York.

Dollar for dolar, life abroad, in the US at least, were much better off. The way our cost of living is, even if one were to live in the top most expensive cities in the world, like say Paris, London, Tokyo and Hong Kong, there is some extra monthly. But not here.

If one were willing to live outside the city in these places, there is some saving from a cheaper rent and some bit of travelling. It does not seem to be the case in Malaysia with transportation cost rising higher and higher by the year. The lower rent outside the city comes with marked inconvenience and deterioriting quality of life.

Dollar for dollar, executive life abroad is a better life than we have here. Our young executive struggle to own a car and have decent living space. The condition of those in the lower strata of the economy should not be any better.

The main factor that hampered Malaysians lifestyle is currency - the Yen appreciation in the early 80s and Ringgit depreciation against the US$ in 1997/98. Due to the cheaper Yen then, young executive could save up the deposit to buy a car after six month employment. Japanese car then could be acquired for about RM17,000.

This was before the existence of Proton. And, Proton came to the market cheaper than the other Japanese cars. So, the issue of Proton and Perodua is never really an issue as written by the writer for their existense somewhat allowed Malaysian to afford cars.

The financial crisis in 1997/98 actually affected our lifestyle severely. For Malaysians that could afford to send their children to study abroad, they could send then send them from A Level or Matriculation or Year 1 level, not the manner of twininng of today.

Privatisation used to be the complain for the rise in cost of living, but it never really put a severe dent in our pocket and the convenient is justifiable. The problenm of privatised services worsen only after till the financial crisis and more so under the current administration poor economic management.

While in absolute term, Malaysia is a cheaper place to live, our salary does not really commensurate with the cost of living. Over time, it is eroding our purchasing power and salary increases are usually sporadic and only at the higher echelon. Government salary increase would result in immediate price hike by retailers that essentially cancels out.

Our lifestyle is severely hampered and the Abdullah Badawi administration have done NOTHING to elevate the problem of rising prices. Prices of essentials have been going up endlessly and there seems to be NO serious effort to check and enforce price control policies. True, rising oil prices is unavoidable. But we are an oil-producing nation and Petronas is a global oil exploration company. Whats wrong with sharing the rising profit at the people's level?

One way, as I see, is to change the formula for calculation of retail oil price from the the use of International price as a base to cost of production as a base. We own these fields. Oil is big money business and lucrative. One good strike and the payback from the successful investment does not wait years but months to recover. What is wrong with sharing that with the people? And, we've put out or going to put out some 40 new platforms off Terengganu and Murphy Oil strike in Sabah is a whopper! So how about sharing the benefit with the people? Figure it out.

Apart from the unabated oil price rise, Abdullah administration is never serious about the plight of the people from rising prices but keep maintaining the same cost structure in calculation of privatisation services and has repeatedly said will remove all forms of Government subsidies.

Contrary to his early rural driven agriculture economic program, his development program is urban driven economics. The economic corridors, thus far, IDR and NCER, would expand urbanisation into the suburban and rural hinterland. This will eventually result in higher cost of living throughout the country.

Will the higher cost from his economic corridor put more money in the people's pocket over that of corporate coffer? Will it strengthen the national current account, help strengthen the Ringgit and subsequently reduce foreign inflation push?

Can it be done with a GDP growth level at practically a "no growth" rate in the sub 6%? Sure they will say, our economic base is larger and achieving above 7% is difficult. Singapore just announced 7-8% projection, what do you say of that?

Till we have a leadership that understands economics and understand our proud tradition of nationalistic economic policies, we will personally continue to suffer financially. Nationalistic economic policy is not one sided market driven like that of laisse fairre economics but people driven balancing of social and national priority with economic and market consideration. Thats the trdition of Tun Abdul Razak and not just sloganeering of his name.

Till we rid the corridor of power of free-market textbook-theoretician adviser at Tingkat 4 and pro-IMF Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) fraternity within Ministry of Finance and off course BNM itself, lets not dream of a better standard of living. Keeping ones job is now considered a luxury in this administration that has NO idea achieving growth for the economy and business, other than through retrenchment and wastage cancellation of economic programs.

It is time to bring the issue of standard of living into a national and political debate. Some will say we are better off and some will say otherwise, it doesn't matter. It could be a discussion on economic school of throughts or political ideology. It is high time that the peoples' life take centrestage. We need to have a national discussion to ensure that the administration, be it Barisan Nasional or perhaps Opposition at certain State, take the peoples' standard of living as priority consideration in any of its endeavour.

For a start, lets start churning actual inflation and standard of living numbers and not the CPI (Consumer Price Index) crap we have been lied to by Economist year in year out. Yeah yeah ... I know it meets the International standard of formula, survey technique, weightage, and what not, but it still is a crap that is not reflective of the true picture.

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Talk about pain in the neck. I was facing pain in the neck and stiff shoulder all weekend. Despite putting up one posting Sunday, I've been pretty much out of blogging action.

My usual neck exercise and visit to a blind urut centre on Sunday afternoon weren't much help. But I hanged on with the hope that with much rest, it'll subside. Nope it didn't.

By Monday night, the pain was excruciating and I just couldn't take it anymore. I got myself admitted into my regular and nearby "resort". After a shot of volteren to ease the pain, only could I get to sleep.

After two sessions of physio, pain killers and two shots of muscle relaxant on the shoulder yesterday, I could finally live less painfully and return home yesterday.

This X-Ray shows a fine looking neck, slightly arched. Mine, in the words of my Spine Surgeon cum Orthopaedic, is too straight. He noticed two points of compression and a slight not-supposed-to-there growth at C-2 vertebrae.

Blogging will be limited since I can't sit long. I neet to get my PC better arranged orthopaedically. I'll be living on daily dosage of pills - nerve pill (a new one over my regular neurobion), painkiller, zyloric, colchicine - and physiotheraphy to realign my neck. My uric acid level also shot way high in the 550 level. It can be bad news for upcoming Ramadhan.

I was in a foul mood coping with the pain. Sorry, whoever nurses and others that got barked at. And, Dolah, Khairy and all those wet behind the ears Tingkat 4, I'll be back blogging to continue to be a pain in your necks, till you guys buck up and stop selling out.

Duplicating the lyric, "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain", I am like going through "The pain from sprain seemed to stay in vain". If I could share an advice, watch out your posture all the time!!!

Nevertheless, whatever I am facing, its nothing to what my old buddy and family is facing. His wife just had both her legs amputated due to some blood disorder problem that affected her nerve system. Its called SEL something.

She seemed psychologically affected. I hope he be strong for the sake of the Mrs. She needs you now more than ever.

Accept that its God's predetermination and I know you've made the necessary effort. And, I know you almost made it. Look at it this way. You've tried your best and it could be worse. Being without legs does not make her less of a human being. She still have her soul.

Be on good term with God, I am sure there are reasons (or hikmah) why things happen and there is always rahmat behind the decisions of the wise Al Mighty.

3. Menurut kenyataan US State Government, penaja utama The G8 Broader Middle East and North Afri Initiative (BMENA) adalah The United State Agency for International Development (USAID) dan The US Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI)

9. Bakhtiar Amin, Iraq adalah pengasas The Iraqi Democracy Institute, berpengkalan di United States dengan tajaan The US Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Endowment of Democracy (NED), The National Democtratic Institute (NDI), The International Republican Institute (IRI) dan the United States Institute of Peace.

2. Menurut office of the spokesman, Washington DC, February 2, 2006 : "After consultations among civil society representatives and government officials from the United States, Europe and the broader Middle East and North Africa, it was announced today that Rahma Bourqia of Morocco, Bakhtiar Amin of Iraq and Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia will serve as the 'selection committee' to appoint the Board of Directors for the broader Middle East and North Africa Foundation For the Future"

5. Selain DSAI, seorang lagi tokoh yang diberi kepercayaan US Department of State ialah Sandra O' Connor. Kenyataan media US Department of State pada 8 Jun 2006, melalui Office of the spokesman Washington DC menyebut "The department of state is pleased to announce that former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Dya Oconnor has agreed to serve as the US reprensentative to the Boarder Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) Foundation For the Future."

I am writing to request the tranfer of the secondment of Ms Shaza Riza, British citizen, employee of the Bank, from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the US Department of State to the Foundation for the Future which she was in charge of establishing.

While assigned to the Foundation for the Future, Ms Riza will work in the Washington DC office of the Foundation. Ms Riza will be Senior Advisor to the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors of the Foundation for The Future.

Ms Riza's secondment to the foundation will be subject to the same arrangements agreed to with the state Department.

After reviewing in this document, please sign it and return it to me via fax at 703 464 5153. We look forward to continue our work with ms Riza on this important initiative.Should you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 703 464 5161